Dual Processor PC's

[fogministries]

I posted this request on the Recording Forum too. Thanks for patience.

Hello all. I am looking to upgrade my current PC from a Pentium 3-633. I have been considering the possibility of going with a dual processor motherboard and maybe two Pentim 1ghz processors. I am wondering if anyone has had any experience in this matter?
I am currently running:
Cubase VST 5
Aardvark Direct Pro 24/96
512 MB Ram
Thanks for your replies


------------------
And He hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God: many shall see it, and fear, and shall trust in the Lord

[brzilian]

What OS will you be running? Only Windows 2000 and XP Professional support multiprocessor systems.

[fogministries]

Br,

In answer to your question on OS: I am currently running Win ME (I realize now what a big mistake that is and am soon going back to 98). Part of the purpose of this thread was to see what people suggested in an OS, and processors. Deals on ebay and other sources are great for dual processor systems right now and I am considering the "upgrade". I just need to see what people's reactions are, and if I am going in a good direction.

------------------
And He hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God: many shall see it, and fear, and shall trust in the Lord

[luumu]

The dual-processing got a whole lot more interesting with the introduction of AMD's MP line. Their chipset has a dedicated bus for each processor, if you go Intel you'll be running through a shared bus to your processors. No, I'm not a professional AMD stooge, I just like to get the most bang for my buck, and Athlon MP is the way to go. I'm just a geek reading through, trying to help a musician friend with his computing needs. So as far as the stability-issues discussed on this site with music-editing soft/hardware, I have no idea. WIN 2K is a fair platform, see if you can find the NSA's (or was it CIA's) guide how to make it secure and stable. It's a lenghty document, but a good one(if you don't trust these dudes...). Personally I prefer NT4, but the driver availability in your business might become an issue.

[This message has been edited by luumu (edited November 05, 2001).]

[brzilian]

Originally posted by luumu:
The dual-processing got a whole lot more interesting with the introduction of AMD's MP line. Their chipset has a dedicated bus for each processor, if you go Intel you'll be running through a shared bus to your processors. No, I'm not a professional AMD stooge, I just like to get the most bang for my buck, and Athlon MP is the way to go. I'm just a geek reading through, trying to help a musician friend with his computing needs. So as far as the stability-issues discussed on this site with music-editing soft/hardware, I have no idea. WIN 2K is a fair platform, see if you can find the NSA's (or was it CIA's) guide how to make it secure and stable. It's a lenghty document, but a good one(if you don't trust these dudes...). Personally I prefer NT4, but the driver availability in your business might become an issue.

[This message has been edited by luumu (edited November 05, 2001).]

NT 4.0 should not even be a consideration since it does not have support for USB devices, Plug 'n Play and the latest DirectX/WDM stuff used by today's music/digital audio software.

NT 4.0 is a decent (but dated) OS, but at this point there is no reason not to use Windows 2000.

[luumu]

Hmm ... I thought the last sentence in my reply quite clearly conveyed my thoughts about NT 4's suitability to general audio purposes. But nevertheless, the claims about USB support for NT 4 are wrong. And if you want to maximize your system's performance you have to get rid of the whole plug 'n play. The directX portion is accurate, NT 4 support doesn't measure up to current needs. But the last statement Mr.(?) brzilian makes is false, as I stated I personally prefer NT4. This is because my tweaked-to-the-max NT4 machine outperforms my tweaked-to-the-max WIN 2K machine on certain tasks that I have to perform quite regularly, and by a quite a margin. Unfortunately this is of no help towards the original question, I apologize for being provoked so easily ...

[brzilian]

USB support? I'd like to see my digital camera's USB cable work in NT 4.0 then.

I work for a kiosk enclosure manufacturer and you CANNOT use a Elotouch monitor with a USB touchscreen connection in Windows NT 4.0. The installation CD does not even have that option. Trust me, I integrate and troubleshoot 98/NT/Win2k systems all day.

http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q196/6/61.ASP

Given 2 identical systems, of course NT 4.0 will outperform Win2k due to the fact that NT was released back in 1996 and its hardware requirements would be significantly less than Win2k. Every new MS OS requires more horsepower to run efficiently - MS wouldn't have it any other way (neither would the computer industry - they need to make money!).



[This message has been edited by brzilian (edited November 05, 2001).]

[luumu]

Sorry, can't trust you on this one. Just because you can't make something to work, and microsoft says it doesn't work, does not make it the ultimate truth. There are a few USB stacks for NT4, of course there are other ways around the problem, but you'd have to adapt a totally new outlook on life. It is a lot easier to put your faith in something/somebody, but personally I question everything (and trust no one ...). I started working with NT in -94, and using a phrase like: "The installation CD does not even have that option " was a sure way to get fired. Hack, Crack, and Trap -- and always have duct tape and wirehangers handy ...

[brzilian]

>>Hack, Crack, and Trap -- and always have duct tape and wirehangers handy ... <<

Yeah, ok, paying customers love to hear that one. NOT!!!

FYI, I do have a Computer Engineering background, but even I'm not stupid enough to code for, much less hack a MS OS - its a lost cause. They're so screwed up in Redmond, its not even funny (ActiveX vunerabilities for Outlook/IE users, Raw Sock API support, crashing modem drivers in XP that require a internet connection for an update, etc...)

That's what Unix/Linux is for.

I've been using NT since 3.51 and was using betas of 4.0 a year before it came out, so I too know what I am talking about. I have also been using computers and synths together for 10 years. Ever try Windows 3.0 with multimedia extensions to run your MIDI interface?

[This message has been edited by brzilian (edited November 06, 2001).]

[luumu]

My paying customers only know that the end result works according to the specs. I ain't ever going to tell 'em what I had to do to get the thing working. And most of 'em don't want to know, that's why they got a "hired gun" in the first place. I don't like MS products (or the company) in general, but since I make a living playing with their stuff, I've learned not to waste my energy for crying over spilled milk. And as I stated in my first post I have no experience working with any audio software. Widen your horizon, use the positives, don't use negatives, and get to coding. You can become the master of your MS box ...

[Soporific]

"Hack, Crack and Trap.." So you're the guy I had to come and clean up after! j/k. I personally believe there isn't much problem with the Windows OS's anymore, now that devices have become more compatible. Half the problems associated with them in the past was from crappy drivers. People wonder why their 5 dollar sound card jacked their system up, it was the $2.50 drivers that came with it. There isn't much reason to use NT 4.0 anymore, at least not with W2K out there. Granted, it's not perfect, and no you can't customize every last detail and re-compile the O/S, but it's simple as hell to set up and maintain.

~S